Comments on: Why Apache defeated the GPL license: developer freedom vs. user freedom

By: Talijanac

Talijanac — Thu, 17 May 2018 09:04:59 +0000

Software houses which use GPL code in their products are not obliged to push code changes if the software is kept in house. GPL code authors ARE obliged to give access to their source to their direct customers and only them. They have no obligation to the rest of the world or original code authors. This ‘obligation’ is pretty standard in the software world as is giving full software ownership to your customer. Remember majority of software development is custom made for only one use(r) mode. So GPL doesn’t change a thing here.

The GPL is a very good model when you have expertise but do not have the money or time to develop everything in house. GLP gives redistribution rights to all users of the code (free market) and promotes collaboration (cheap and fast development).

The GPL is mostly bad model for corporations which target broad market after years of development and have money and time to do it. It is also bad for the software houses which are in a position to monopolize markets. Think Microsoft Windows, IBM MQ, Oracle DB, Adobe Photoshop.

Apache is decent model when you have expertise and money, but do not have significant market share yet.

The GPL is by far the best software license for end-users of the code. Non-software enterprises like banks or states and folk like your dad benefit a lot from GPL license.

By: Strypey

Strypey — Tue, 06 Dec 2016 01:32:59 +0000

Sure, being able to use software they didn’t pay to develop, without giving back their improvements, is good for corporations, their bottom line, and their comparative advantage. So yes, there is a lot of PR about how licenses like Apache (and BSD) that permit that exploitation are good, for the same reason there is a lot of PR about how “permissive” employment laws that allow the exploitation of workers are good. Companies who want to have their cake and eat it too will continue to have their spindoctors write tripe like this claiming that non-copyleft licenses are more “permissive”. But permissive for who? Software users, or software vendors?

The edges of a movement are always full of people who have been recruited on the basis that there’s something in it for them (eg gratis software they can freely reuse), and who don’t yet understand what the movement stands for and why. All movements grow at their edges, so in a growing movement there tends to be more of those people relative to the core of people who do understand the issues. At the core of the “open source” movement is the software freedom movement, whowill never stop advocating for software freedom for users, and most people who stay in the “open source” movement for long enough will eventually become part of that core.

By: Karl

Karl — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:49:13 +0000

Boy, there are so many weasel words in that article it reads like GPL FUD to me. There was some discussion about this data back when it was released in 2011. Use of GPL licenses increased, but as more corporations begin using open source they chose other licenses where possible which permit them to close the software. It was interesting to see the momentum of the LibreOffice fork after OpenOffice changed from LGPLv3 to the Apache license. Last year Mr. Torvalds once again stated that the GPLv2 was a great choice for his kernel. The "fractious religious wars" between the political left and right have never ceased. There is no "nagging doubt imposed by the GPL". There is only the certainty that the end users will have control over the software they run.

By: Todd S.

Todd S. — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:31:08 +0000

In many ways, this decline reflects a rejection of the premises underlying free software licensing, with its rigid focus on software freedom, in favour of a broader emphasis on developer freedom.

That sounds like BSD licensing. The BSD license has been described generally as being protective of the coder, not the code. In many circles it is considered more “free” (as in libre, not gratis) than the GPL.